Employers’ religious freedom and the Hobby Lobby case (3 letters)

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Hobby Lobby and other businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement under the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control for employees. (Ed Andrieski, Associated Press file)

Alicia Caldwell writes, “Health care decisions are among the most personal of transactions that we engage in.” She is exactly right in this regard, but exactly wrong in her conclusion that Hobby Lobby’s stance is an “affront to liberty.” Their objection is not denying women access to contraception, they just don’t want to be forced to pay for drugs that violate their religious beliefs.

Employees can still buy whatever contraceptives they want — at their own expense. What Caldwell seems to mendaciously and deliberately ignore is the fact that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause trumps employees’ rights to have Hobby Lobby pay for their “most personal of transactions.” The right to obtain contraceptives does not include the right to force others to pay for it.

Seth Richardson, Monument

This letter was published in the Dec. 5 edition.

For those who believe that First Amendment religious rights should attach to corporations in the way the suit filed by Hobby Lobby asserts, please answer a few questions for me:

What would be the rights of stockholders in a “Buddhist” corporation if that corporation achieved enlightenment and became a bodhisattva since it would presumably go out of business as it was no longer motivated by profit or the need of material products?

Would the hostile take over of a “Catholic” corporation by a “Hindu” corporation be a forced conversion and hence a violation of religious freedom or would it be a business transaction only? If this newly joined entity produced subsidiary corporations what religion would they be raised in?

Could a corporation “convert” to a different religion and then void part or all of its contracts if they no longer comport with the newly professed faith?

Jean Wall, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 5 edition.

Alicia Caldwell neglected to cite the main reason for Judge Timothy Tymkovich’s referencing the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case as the basis of his decision supporting Hobby Lobby’s reasoning that it should not be required to purchase health insurance for its employees because of religious objections.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United’s case, which held that corporations and labor unions cannot be denied free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution. That ruling has long historical legs going back to the original income tax laws which taxed only the income of U.S. persons.

When a later free-spending Democratic Congress wanted to tax corporations, income tax law contained no provisions to tax corporations. Congress and the Internal Revenue Service simply deemed corporations as “persons.” Thus, as a “person,” a corporation has the same rights, as a faith-based religious individual.

As a “person,” a corporation may even have the right to vote Republican! Wouldn’t that be a shocker?

Edward Hawkins, Denver

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Sorry Seth, but no. The first amendment also says you cannot force your religious beliefs on others. You seemed to have neglected that part.

I thought conservatives hated it when things got in the way of the doctor-patient relationship? They sure don’t seem to have a problem when a corporation forces itself into one’s health care decisions.

Also, health insurance is part of the employees’s compensation. Just as a corporation can’t tell an employee how to spend their paycheck (for now), they can’t tell someone what healthcare they can and can’t use.

Not even to mention, Hobby Lobby is just plain wrong on the science. Contraceptives don’t cause abortions, no matter what your belief is. There’s a thing called science that can provide these answers.

thor

I can’t find the words in the Constitution that inform us that we can’t force or religion on others. It does say that the government can’t establish a religion.

Now about who is forcing themselves into ones health care decisions, that would be Obamacare. Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to be forced provide for certain types of contraceptives. But they won’t stop an employee from buying their own.

Tbone, have you ever heard of the morning after pill? Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to provide for these kinds of pills.

peterpi

Awwww …
Suppose they decide that Caesarian sections are also against their ethics? If God wants a woman to deliver that baby, God will provide a way, without the interference of human beings.
Or liver transplants. After all, if your time is up, your time is up, right? Who are we to defy God by extending life?

thor

Why would we be defying God by extending life? God created all of the components that we have discovered and He has given us the knowledge in how to use them. He is glorified when we use His creations to help people. But this discussion is a side track. We are only talking about some kinds of contraceptives and how they will be paid for.

peterpi

Now, now, thor, that’s your religious beliefs.
Who are you to tell an employer they can’t be opposed to organ donation?
Consistency, thor, consistency.

Dano2

Don’t you agree that all employees should point east five times a day and pray?

Best,

D

thor

Who are you to tell an employer that she can’t tell an employee to buy her own contraceptives.

mrfxx

thor – sweetie – that INCLUDES birth control, sterilization AND abortion (and birth control and abortion have been around longer than Christianity).

irisman

The bible says the life span of Man is threescore and ten. I could interpret that as meaning that people should be denied healthcare once they reach age 70. It would sure save a lot of money. I find that people who use religion to justify their argument are proficient at finding passages in the bible that they claim to support their religious beliefs.

thor

People misuse the Bible to prove many things. The Pope and President Obama have done so recently to support their redistribution of wealth ideology. But it is no misuse of the Bible to see that God views life as sacred.

DR

I can’t find the words in the Bible that inform us that women cannot use contraceptives…

Dano2

The bibble or the Constitution.

Best,

D

bleeth

Both.

The bibble (haha!) has no references to women using birth control pills. Nor could I find any passages in the Constitution that says that religious employers in the secular private sector business arena have a right to dictate anyone’s healthcare.

johnrpack

Let me help you with your Constitution. The tenth amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Since there is now power over health care (including contraception) granted to the US by the Constitition, that means this is something that is reserved to the States or the people. Any involvement of the federal government in health care (except that which crosses state or national boundaries) is unconstitutional (as are all parts of the federal government beyond the 17 powers delegated in Article I, Section 8).

Dano2

Any involvement of the federal government in health care is unconstitutional

“Your” “argument” has already been pre-bunked.

That is: tell that to the USC, who ruled on this already.

How do you think they ruled on it? If it was unconstitutional, do you think Faux “News” would have a crawler 24/7 crowing to the high heavens about it being unconstitutional?

Of course you do. So why is there no crawler 24/7 supporting “your” assertion?

Best,

D

johnrpack

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to override the text of the Constitution.

Dano2

Ask them to reverse Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company then, because the fundamental issue is the same. That is: the Constitution is silent on this issue, making it up to Congress to set laws and the courts to interpret them.

Just like it is silent on public schools. Because neither public health, public health care, nor public schools were extant at the time of the penning of the Constitution.

HTH

Best,

D

johnrpack

No valid court interpretation can contradict the text.

The amendment process is designed to allow changes over time. But there’s no reason any of those things needs to be at the federal (rather than State) level.

Dano2

Penna Coal is one decision that personally chaps my hide. But surely you have yours. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company is another one for me. Those are my top two, Citizens United is top ten.

Best,

D

bleeth

Sorry.

Still no references to religion dictating what healthcare we receive is listed in the constution

Dano2

Remember: “corporations as people” isn’t in the Constitution either.

Best,

D

bleeth

No it isn’t.

I wonder if fetuses are shareholders in these corporations?

Dano2

That is what the Right wants: expanded personhood for non-viable zygotes. So it could legally be possible (in the bubble) for a zygote to be a voting shareholder. What a miserable country that will be, eh?

Best,

D

guest

It’s in there the same way as abortion is in there, that is, in court rulings.

Dano2

Unviable zygotes as people could be shareholders in this scheme. The shareholders could have their mom’s taxes lowered if they were in the right womb.

Best,

D

Dano2

Apparently I can’t reply to your comment without a zealot having a sad!

Best,

D

thor

That’s why most churches don’t say yes or no to contraceptive use. But the morning after pill is a different thing. The real issue is one of life being precious, even in the embryo state. BTW, did you know that abortion raises a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer? I wonder why women’s advocacy groups never mention that when they defend abortion?

Tbone

Another lie for Jeesus! Keep ’em coming!

Also – morning after pills aren’t abortions.

thor

Morning after pills, though, are at the heart of the matter for Hobby Lobby, not general contraceptives. Also, can you inform me as to what lie you are talking about?

Tbone

And they don’t know jack about the science behind them.

peterpi

There are all sorts of churches that tell a woman she can’t use any form of contraception.
I assume you’ve heard of the Roman Catholic Church, for one.
That “breast cancer” myth is just that. A myth. It assumes that a woman who has an abortion will never have a baby, ever. Maybe that’s why women’s advocacy groups never mention it.

Tbone

Yea, the references in that study?

80% of them say there’s no link to breast cancer.

Nice own goal!

guest

Ah, yes, the new science of the left. Majority rules.

Tbone

You really have no clue, do you? Why don’t you take a look at the study and explain why 80% of their references say there’s no link?

How about the American Cancer Society? Komen? All say there’s no link.

Justclimbit

Regarding your attempt to mischaracterize scientific consensus, let’s look at this from a reverse perspective. If you find one study out of 100 that asserts that A is the cause of B, while the others find no such evidence (or actually refute that anomalous finding), do you really think that it is logical to not be skeptical of that one paper’s conclusions? Majority doesn’t rule in science, but majority does indicate what the bulk of the evidence shows. Same “old” science, neither left nor right.

guest

More BS? Of course it is especially when a scientific area becomes politicized.

Justclimbit

Removed by commenter. Not worth the effort.

guest

No, I’m going to do like you do and say read my other postings.

Justclimbit

I’m not a fan of fiction, so I think I’ll decline.

guest

Good.

thor

But you don’t mind writing fiction. Hmmm….

Justclimbit

Please identify what “fiction” you think I have written.

peterpi

“Politicized science” is the same as “activist judges”: It exists when the user of the term finds science in disagreement with him or her.

Justclimbit

Indeed. But to see someone find it rational to not be wary of the advice offered by the proverbial one out of ten doctors because he believes the other nine are conspiring against his particular form of partisanship is still a bit strange. Buy that man a tin foil hat.

guest

No,politicized science is just that. AGW is politicized as is breast cancer and abortions. Both hit very politicized topics with proponents on both sides claiming the other side is lying and not simply wrong.

thor

Oh, no, scientific consensus. Get off of that kick.

Justclimbit

Oh no, Thor attempting to comment about science. Get off that kick.

BTW, it was “goodspkr” that brought up consensus. Reply to him.

bleeth

Nobody is advocating the policies of China to be used here.

Bottom line: We have freedom of religion in this country. That also translates into freedom FROM religion.

You have no right to force your religious dogma on my healthcare. You do realize we wouldn’t even be discussing this if we had a single payer system?

guest

Suggest you read the posting again. It was about a study done in China finding women who had abortions had a 44% increase in the chance of getting breast cancer. This is about science, not religion.

No one is forcing religious dogma on your healthcare, but government is attempting to force their view of healthcare on religions.

bleeth

Women get breast cancer because of many things. What other considerations were taken besides just abortion? Moot argument when junk science is used.

Yes you are forcing your religious dogma on my healthcare. If Hobby Lobby wishes to use religion as a tool to promote this sexist agenda in our secular business and healthcare country than perhaps they should remove themselves from the world of business where they have no right to control the type of healthcare people receive.

Once again, single payer is the answer.

guest

Do you have any idea of these studies are done? You compare the rates of breast cancer of people who haven’t had and abortion with the rates of people who had had an abortion. If your sample size is large enough those other factors should cancel each other out.

It appears you are okay with businesses paying for healthcare, but not for having any say in what kind of healthcare they will offer. At the same time you appear to be fine with the government controlling the type of healthcare people receive.

Single payer IMO is why Sebelius put in the requirement that HI include birth control and abortifacients.

bleeth

“It appears you are okay with business paying for healthcare.”

No I’m not. I don’t think businesses should be required to provide healthcare. This wouldn’t even be an issue if we had a single payer system.

And, of course, judging by your last sentence, you really don’t understand what a single payer system is. This country has nothing whatsoever related to a single payer system. A public option would have been close but that was denied by the republicans. The republicans, however, gifted insurance cartels with the ACA and they reacted in usual fashion by raising their rates, blaming the very system that gave them that gift.

bleeth

That’s because women pretty much ignore that nonsense.

peterpi

Your side politicizes science with the best of them.
There is a link between lack of child-bearing and breast cancer.
The right-to-lifers insist that women who have an abortion would never dream of having children, therefore, abortion causes cancer.
Baloney.

guest

Do you guys always have to explain what the right says that is absolutely wrong? You never seem to quote us, just make up statements that you contend is what we believe.

thor

A convenient lie for liberals, but not so for women who have had breast cancer.

mrfxx

Apparently, you and other folks misunderstand how the “morning after” pill works. They are drugs intended to disrupt or delay ovulation or fertilization, which are necessary for pregnancy – in short, the PREVENT pregnancy, which is why they must be taken within 72 hours of intercourse to be effective, and the sooner the better, since it takes at least 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilize the egg.

A corporation is property. A corporation can’t have a religion, any more than a toaster can.

holyreality

Please tell that to Anthony Roberts.

bleeth

I can’t find the passage in the constitution that say freedom of religion translates into employees dictating my healthcare.

In fact. I find no references for ortho-novum 135 in the bible that dictates to women that they can’t use it.

John Semple

I don’t see many people making this obvious point. HOBBY LOBBY IS NOT BUYING OR PROVIDING CONTRACEPTION TO ITS EMPLOYEES. Nor is it required to. Hobby Lobby is paying money to an insurance company that may or may not provide contraception. It’s going through a third party.

If Hobby Lobby pays its money to its employees and the employees use that money to buy contraception themselves (as people are saying they should do), how is that different?

I’ve also seen the point made that Hobby Lobby gets like 90% of the items it sells from China, which has an extremely liberal (in some cases, mandatory) abortion policy.

guest

No, they are self insured. Get your facts right.

bleeth

Exactly.

They should take their argument to the insurance cartels that dwell in the free market. Something that most of them support.

holyreality

Well done
Thanks
Additionally, would Seventh Day Adventists, Witness, or Scientology owned corporations be able to eliminate all prescription coverage under these same parameters?
Corporate personhood is a slippery slope, if corporations a souless enitity if there ever was one can have religious rights, they too must face the death penalty for malfeasance and corruption.

guest

You realize that your interpretation this would pretty much cripple all the oversight by government. The FDA, EPA, etc. could only go and investigate a corporation if they had probably cause. The investigation would be hampered with Miranda warnings and lawyers present at all interviews.

Corporations have certain right but they are limited. What the left seems to be besides themselves about it that they have a right to lobby and donate money to candidates that support what would be good for their company and industry. If you are going to control them, it would seem it is only fair that they should be able to tell their side of the story and support people who agree with them.

holyreality

You make it sound like corporations don’t wholly own Congress.

A fascist state is more of a corporatist state, private firms control the government for profits and control.

Corporations, if granted personhood must face a death penalty without the rights natural persons have in criminal defense.

guest

I believe we are headed to a fascist state, but a fascist state is not where corporations control the government, but where government controls the corporations.

holyreality

What planet were you born upon?

peterpi

Tbone, right-to-lifers are re-defining abortion so they can claim contraception causes abortion.

Dano2

yes. At this rate, a zygote will be a corporation if sane people don’t stand up and revolt.

Best,

D

thor

Pro-abortionists are ignoring the fact that abortion ups the chances of a woman developing breast cancer. I will be interesting in your spin denying that fact.

Tbone

That’s a flat out lie.

peterpi

When has that troubled thor?

thor

Ah, now we have the pot calling the kettle black.

Guest

It is a lie, just like you!! You and the rest of the rightwingnuts promote this, when nobody else does. Funny how you all are willing to believe a “communist, socialist country” when it suits your agenda!! But that’s typical of looni.., well you know the rest!

From wikipedia:

The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]

Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]

The ongoing promotion of a link between abortion and breast cancer is seen by others as part of the pro-life “woman-centered” strategy against abortion.[22][23][24] Pro-life groups maintain they are providing legally necessary informed consent,[25] a concern shared by some politically conservative politicians.[26] The abortion–breast cancer issue remains the subject of political controversy.[5]

guest

wow!!!! Wikipedia!!!! I’m impressed. The last word in truth. Well you got me there.

So are you denying that the Chinese ran this meta-study? Do you deny they came up with the results? Or do you not give a damn with other scientific studies say because your religion says that abortion is a sacrament and no one can contest that with FACTS.

Guest

It’s Wikipedia citing sources, not that it was their studies. You play stupid very well…..not really a play, I guess. So you believe in the communist socialist studies? WOW! Instead of:

“This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]”
You certainly are a loon.., well you know the rest! Especially with your last line, which is a sure sign of desperation!!

guest

China quit being Communist a long time ago. They have moved on to the left wing philosophy that is moving across Europe and that the lefties in the states want us to move to, that is, fascism.

So are you denying the Chinese study? Are you saying that there is a great movement in China by their religious groups to fake the data and come to the conclusion that abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?

The last line sums up the left in the country quite well. They don’t give a damn about scientific studies that contradict their beliefs.

Guest

So you’re denying The World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer society, the American Cancer Society, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynacologists and their findings?? But you believe “the Chinese study”…..but nothing else to support your lame argument. But that sums up the looney rightwingnuts in the country today, to cling to anything that may possibly support your twisted, ignorant beliefs!!

guest

I don’t believe that science is a democracy where you vote on what is scientific truth and what isn’t. That isn’t how it works.

Sorry to disagree, but health insurance is a part of an employee’s compensation only when the employer provides it. The employer may choose not to provide it, but if they do provide it, they have the right to decide what coverage they will provide.

Dave52

Hobby Lobby, a company with 15,000 employees, has long offered health insurance that covered the same birth control medications they now find a sudden reason to object to.

thor

I think its only 13,000 employees. Anyway, did they really offer birth control medications and are now objecting to that? Or, are they objecting to being forced to offer medications like the morning after pill.

Dave52

I got that information from The Guardian newpaper. “Notably, the Hobby Lobby used to have an employee insurance plan that covered the very same birth control methods it now claims violate its religious freedom. It wasn’t until the GOP raised a stink about the contraception rules in Obama’s healthcare legislation that the Hobby Lobby “re-examined” its insurance policies. Is the religious belief sincerely held? Probably. But it’s as much political and cynical as it is faith-based.”

Dano2

This is a big clue that the action isn’t about religious freedom at all.

Best,

D

peterpi

Busted.
But thor will never believe you.

thor

Hey, I can be as skeptical as you any day.

thor

Does the Guardian indicate if they were the same contraceptives, or were there additions to what Obamacare asks that could be the problem.

peterpi

Try reading what the Guardian wrote in Dano’s quote:

“Hobby Lobby used to have an employee insurance plan that covered the very same birth control methods it now claims violate its religious freedom.”

guest

BTW it was Dave, not DTJ who quoted the Guardian.

Old_Enough

Spinning like a 78.

guest

not really

guest

You read exactly what the Guardian said, no more, no less. They simply alleged it as a fact with nothing to back it up.

thor

As I thought.

guest

I googled your quote and found the editorial that said that, but provided no link as to where they got that information. And any other links in the next couple of pages on google cited the Guardian as their source.

I don’t doubt you, but I do doubt the Guardian on this.

Dave52

I also find it highly unlikely that the owners of the Hobby Lobby were poring over the minutiae of the policies (different one in each state, due to different regulations) to insure what specific pharmaceuticals they did or didn’t cover – If they had, I imagine that would have been widely reported in their favor. Or that they have specific policies that never covered certain forms of birth control that they now find objectionable. But not a word.

guest

That is plain stupid on your part. Only the left would pore over policies to see if Hobby Lobby was being hypocritical. Now you have one leftist paper (not even in the USA) who claims HL did cover this in the past. Where’s the proof?

And if the leftist pored over the policies (actually they are self insured so it is the same in every state) and didn’t find anything do you really think it would have been reported in their favor? How many times have you read a story “dog doesn’t bite man”?

I really think the left is missing any kind of critical thinking ability. Bonehead asks how many companies have sued to stop paying for ED medicine and now you say the above. Use your brain.

Dave52

Awwwww… Calling me stupid. Thats like soooo sweet!!!! And I love your logical, precise attacks on “the left”. Uh, one doesn’t have to be on the left to appreciate that Hobby Lobby is full of it.

So, in your expert opinion, you believe that an outfit that has never offered certain forms of birth control before, what with their conscientious objection to it, would fail to mention that fact when this issue came up under Obamcare. Sort of like the Quakers? Who conscientiously object to War? A religious tenant thats been going on for what, a few centuries, and everybody knows it? Which is why nobody ever questions their sincerity? But Hobby Lobby, no, they’re different. And special.

Its kind of funny, really. The Catholic-affiliated hospital near here had the same issue – turns out they’ve been purchasing insurance for their employees that covers birth control all along. And they still do, because the nursing staff told them they’d walk out en masse if they tried to stop covering it.

guest

WTF are you talking about?

guest

Your last paragraph appears to demonstrate the government doesn’t need to require employers to cover birth control. Your example says the market takes care of it. I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, but that is what you in essence said.

Dano2

See how the trolls are spinning and spamming. The mouth-breathers and paid shills see you are on to something, Dave.

Best,

D

Dee

Thor, I have been trying to find an answer to my question–Do they cover ED drugs with their insurance or are they fighting against this also. None of the links answer this question. Do you have the inside information?

thor

My only thought is, if they want to be consistent, then no to ED drugs.

Dano2

Aside from the fact that Hobby Lobby et al can’t cram their beliefs down our throats, what I’d rather focus on is their odious withdrawal from the social contract. I know, I know: that’s what Rmoney ran on.

Nevertheless, maybe we should withdraw our taxes and fees for, say, infrastructure to their store. No local roads, no allowance for rights-of-way for infrastructure. I wonder how much they’ll like collectivism then.

Best,

D

eddie47d

Hobby Lobby is not a church and should follow all the rules and regulations that all businesses comply with. Considering how many businesses have dropped health insurance in the last 30 years I think this is all a ploy to do it themselves. Some companies have become extremely irresponsible in dropping pensions, healthcare, vacation time and so forth so maybe religion is no more than an excuse this time around.

guest

Everyone is under the First Amendment. The government should follow those rules.

I see just the opposite. It isn’t the businesses who want to drop health insurance for their people, but rather the extreme left wing administration who want to have massive dropping of health insurance so they can try to pass single payer. Requiring covering of birth control, etc. was designed to antagonize devout Catholics and other religions who are opposed to it.

One more brick in the wall for corporations to be “persons” and discriminate against employees. This campaign is aided and abetted by the Fourth Estate.

There needs to be more muzzy binesses if Roberts and Scalia rule for corporations – that way these muzzy binesses can go wild discriminating against Christian employees. Can’t wait for the fireworks on that one – I may have to invest in a popcorn company.

Best,

D

Robtf777

“As a “person,” a corporation may even have the right to vote Republican! Wouldn’t that be a shocker?”
===========

The idea that a “corporation” has “personhood” rights in LIMITED circumstances……that are normally in the realm of Free Speech (advertising and policy ideology), Searches and Seizures Without a Warrant, and Civil Law…….is pretty much “time-honored” and is not something new. ……except to those who know not history nor the law.

But there is no way – NO WAY – General Motors can vote. Period. A Company cannot enter a voting booth or fill out a ballot. Only PEOPLE can do that.

The CEO and all the executives and all the managers and supervisors and employees can vote. But the Company itself can NOT…..period.

And given the fact that a Company like General Motors has LOTS of Upper Management and THOUSANDS of Employees……General Motors does not even need the “one vote” it doesn’t have.

Robtf777

“Alicia Caldwell writes, “Health care decisions are among the most
personal of transactions that we engage in.” She is exactly right in
this regard, but exactly wrong in her conclusion that Hobby Lobby’s
stance is an “affront to liberty.” Their objection is not denying women
access to contraception, they just don’t want to be forced to pay for
drugs that violate their religious beliefs.

Employees can still buy whatever contraceptives they want — at their
own expense. What Caldwell seems to mendaciously and deliberately ignore
is the fact that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause
trumps employees’ rights to have Hobby Lobby pay for their “most
personal of transactions.” The right to obtain contraceptives does not
include the right to force others to pay for it.”
===============
That Letter pretty much sums up the issue.

Men and Women have the Right to buy whatever they can legally buy……..even if those “legal” items are ethically and morally……questionable…..or promotes a “lifestyle” that many consider is more harmful than it is good. (Adult magazines, alcohol, abortion, and contraceptives all fall in that category even though they may be “legal.”)

The question becomes…..does President Obama and/or Obamacare have the RIGHT to FORCE businesses to PAY for “things” that may be “legal” but to which many people have a Ethical and Moral Objection to?

Does the “Legal” Right to BUY something automatically translate into a Legal Right To Make Others Pay For It?

The answer is…..”no.”

eddie47d

What if there is an epidemic and the only way to control the spread of a disease is to “force” everyone to be vaccinated and to BUY this product or take the chance that society could collapse from inaction. In the end surely others will have to pay to make the program work or end up suffering the consequences.

guest

Not a good analogy. The people who get the vaccination will be immune from the disease while those that don’t will die out (the Darwin principle). Society won’t collapse from inaction.

Robtf777

To The Point:

Does the “Legal” RIGHT to buy something……like adult magazines, alcohol, abortions, contraceptives, condoms,,,,,,automatically translate into the Legal RIGHT To Make Others Pay For Them?

The answer is……is as obvious as it is…..”no.”

peterpi

Wow, what a way to inflame.
Where is anyone forcing you to pay for adult magazines or abortions?
Prescription contraception is available, um, only with a prescription. Condoms can be bought off the shelf. You’d go bonkers if any drug company, using the FDA’s own standards, tried to get one of its contraception drugs to qualify as sold off the shelf. Then you wouldn’t be able to throw roadblocks in the paths of women not wanting to get pregnant.
Hey, if a man doesn’t want to get a woman pregnant, he doesn’t need condoms, he can just keep his pants zipped, right? Men don’t need condoms, they just need self-control, right? They can take a cold shower, right?

mrfxx

What Robt fails to recognize is the fact that 80-90% of MARRIED COUPLES use birth control at some point for “family planning” (not everyone can afford the 19 kids the Duggar’s have – nor the multiple prolapse surgeries that the wife has had which one might see as God’s way of telling her to STOP HAVING BABIES) – and, yes that includes members of religions which ban artificial birth control (including condoms and sterilization of either partner). Interestingly, the Catholic Church also bans “fertility assistance” AND a patient’s right to make end of life decisions for him/herself (DNRs, medical power of attorney stating when to “pull the plug”), etc – so I’m guessing that at his life’s end, Robt will be HAPPY to bankrupt his family when he ends up in a religious-owned hospital – and listen to those trying to convert him to the “right” religion” since he believes that shoving one’s beliefs down others’ throats is absolutely the RIGHT thing to do (the RCC today “owns” over 1/3 of the hospitals in the US and keep being allowed to buy up formerly nonsectarian hospitals to foist their religious beliefs on employees and patients).

peterpi

So, if a business has freedom of religious conscience, can a conservative Christian-owned business bar gay people from being employed, because Christian businesses shouldn’t have to associate with such vile sinners?
Could a Muslim-owned business bar Jews from shopping or working there, because Jews are occupying Muslim holy sites, and the Qu’ran says Jews and Christians, although monotheists, are accorded second-tier status?
Hobby Lobby, the business here in Denver that’s suing, and the other businesses simply want to tell the “little women” in their employ how to conduct their lives. That’s all it’s about. They wouldn’t dream of telling male employees that they won’t cover this or that medical compound for “low T” or hair loss or impotence, but telling women? You betcha.

thor

“Hobby Lobby, the business here in Denver that’s suing, and the other
businesses simply want to tell the “little women” in their employ how to
conduct their lives.” Male bovine excrement!!!They are not telling anyone, much less their over-whelming female employees, how to conduct their lives. They are saying that they don’t want to pay for lifestyle decisions through health care coverage. And how do you know they want to pay for coverage for “lowT?” The least you could do is use the word “probably.”

peterpi

thor, get real. Wake up and open your eyes.
Their store staff may be predominantly female, but I guarantee you their executive suite is predominantly male. That’s how American businesses work. That’s the predominant retail model.
This is just another arm of the octopus-like effort to stop women from getting contraception, from making her own choices: Re-define abortion, claim contraception causes abortion, then scream “religious freedom!”
It’s just like people who go to work for pharmacies that offer prescription contraception, then want the right to refuse to give a woman her duly-authorized contraception prescription. These people could go to work for a pharmacy that doesn’t offer contraception, but, nooo, … then they wouldn’t be able to stick their more-moral-than-thou nose where it doesn’t belong.

Dano2

No, no, no:

This isn’t about those dirty sl*ts keeping their legs closed. It’s about being able to discriminate against your employees.

Plus, if further erosion of democracy means that a corporation is a person with religious freedom, this is more erosion of workers’ rights. You’ll want to follow the sales of Rosetta Stone language software.

Best,

D

thor

You are really a dork.

thor

Still over stating, huh? There are many corporations run by females. It would appear that your ideological bent has caused you to say things about women that are full of lies. I think you are the one with closed eyes. You, and others, also hate business and feel they mistreat employees, yada, yada, yada.

primafacie

You stick with that “telling little women how to live” stuff without any regard for the actual argument, so it’s pointless to debate it.

But I’ll say it again: The little women can live any way they want. The employers in question just don’t want to pay for it. (I don’t happen to share their objection to contraception, but I share their ideological position.)

You don’t accept or acknowledge that position, or seek to rebut it. But, since it hasn’t been the subject of legal action or public debate, you really have no idea where Hobby Lobby or any other corporation fall on the matter of ED or hair loss medication, do you?

Dano2

I don’t want to pay the taxes to this business for their infrastructure.

That’s how it works.

Best,

D

guest

You don’t pay taxes for their infrastructure. The way the road taxes work is you pay them for your use of the roads as does Hobby Lobby. God you are a J.

Dano2

You are either incredibly ignorant or dishonest when you say I don’t pay taxes for infrastructure.

Thank you for such a succinct synopsis of your comments here.

Best,

D

peterpi

I’ve yet to see a corporation complain about freedom of religious conscience for paying for ED coverage.
I’ve yet to see a business boycotted, or an insurance company picketed, for covering ED medication.
I’ve yet to see a single state passing laws preventing pharmacy clerks from being fired who object to dispensing ED drugs to a man.

It’s all about having control over women.

primafacie

You’re right. I knew it couldn’t be hidden this long.

Every business decision an employer makes is about controlling women, and only women, and specifically their sex lives. In fact, many people go into business solely for the purpose of controlling the “little women.”

Busted.

Tbone

Every? Where did anyone say every?

Just the ones that regulate their personal lives in the name of religion.

primafacie

It must be every. Haven’t you heard? Employers are all systematically and summarily oppressing their valued workers, just because they can push them around, no doubt laughing about it in their smoke-filled board rooms. At least that’s the picture Peter likes to paint about the dog-eat-serf world of servitude, er, employment.

peterpi

Which is just as valid as your view that all employers have only enlightened self-interest towards their employees, that every single employee has an equal power status with the business owner or manager, that no business owner would ever dream of exploiting their workers, and that the free market solves all.

There is no rational business reason behind the Hercules and Hobby Lobby lawsuits. Their owners simply feel they have the right to tell their female employees how to behave.

Fowler

If my employer refuses to buy me a bottle of bourbon once a week is he denying me access to alcohol and controlling how I behave, or is just refusing to subsidize my personal choices? At what point does my refusal pay for something you want suddenly become me telling you what to do with your life?

Tbone

I didn’t realize bourbon was a prescribed medication. Probably the worst possible analogy you could have used.

My employer won’t pay for my health club membership so now he’s limiting my access to exercise and making me obese. Worse, he refused to buy me airfare to Vegas, so he’s also limiting my freedom to travel and forcing his anti-gambling views down my throat! Next thing you know he’ll refuse to pay for my sex change. Greedy bigot. If I didn’t need the money I’d quit the darn job.

toohip

Right-Wing World argument that makes sense to them. Fail
How does this relate to deny contraception to woman who doesn’t want to have a baby she can’t afford, nor do YOU want or refuse to support, but force the woman to have?

Fowler

I’m not forcing her to do anything. You want to force me to pay for something. There’s a big difference there that you don’t comprehend. As an aside, I think it makes great economic sense to have the government pay for all contraceptives, abortions and sterilizations, FREE to those who want them. The more takers we euthanize, prevent from being born or eliminate, that mom “can’t afford” the better.

guest

Religious beliefs don’t necessarily conform to economic sense. It is only a simple move to go from voluntary use of contraception, abortions and sterilization to required contraception, abortion and sterilization.

toohip

Always about the $ and greed, isn’t it! Do you think I/we wanted to pay for that war your president lied to get us into, or Afghanistan? I could go on, with what “we” don’t want to pay for, but at least we can accept this is what living in a democratic society is about.

so now you’re upset that I suggest the government should provide FREE contraception and abortions? No one would ever say consistency is your strong suit.

As for being “mean spirited”, I LOVE it when liberals call me mean spirited, it’s just such a huge put down! How’s this? I’d like to give every poor welfare mom who “can’t afford” a little taker (as you said) a free abortion, a life time supply of birth control pills and a boat load of rubbers. Generous enough for ya?, or is that just mean because I want to kill babies for all the wrong reasons.

Tbone

How does that affect your health care?

primafacie

It doesn’t. Did I say it did? Or are you simply unable to set aside your pursuit for a desirable outcome and consider broad principles and ideology?

Tbone

Since you don’t understand, I’ll clue you in.

We’re talking about health care here. Glad to be of assistance.

primafacie

Ah, the latter. Thanks for confirming.

Tbone

Yea, you’re right, actually discussing the topic at hand rather than making horrible analogies that having nothing to do with the topic is exactly the same as an ideological crusade.

Pretty tight in the clown car today, I bet.

guest

You certainly should know.

guest

No, the free market gives employees the ability to change jobs if they find what the employer does as objectionable. That in fact is what does happen.

Your last paragraph is left wing BS. Hobby Lobby is not telling their employees how to behave. I know you are bonded to that statement, but it is BS.

thor

Can you list the companies that provide ED coverage. Or is this a red herring argument.

Tbone

Can you list the companies going to court to stop paying for ED?

TLC

It’s not very good way to control women, since the women can do whatever they want whether HL pays for their BC or not.

And I hate to break the bad news, but I’m not going to pay for your mortgage, groceries, health insurance, clothing, or anything else this month. So my control over you continues. Bwahaha.

Of course, I’m sure you’re going to send me a check so you won’t be controlling me. You’re just that kind of a guy.

toohip

prima, I don’t think you’re as much a misogynist as you realize you are. Why is always the denial of rights, freedoms, access, health care, etc. . . always “against” women from your side? I’m sorry, prima, but you’re a card-carry member of an “ilk” that has a long historical track record of suppression of women’s rights, and it continues today. When is your ilk going to not make it about women, and just make it about people? It would serve your ilk better, to universally deny everyone, rather than just a gender, or class of people; but that revelation always seems to escape your ilk.

primafacie

It’s quite a stretch to go from the constitutionally ingrained principle of free exercise of religion — even if I, as I state quite plainly, disagree with said exercise — to “suppression of women’s rights.”

What right is being suppressed? Life? No. Liberty? Not really. Pursuit of happiness? No one’s stopping anyone’s pursuit of happiness, although there is guarantee of achieving happiness. Speech? Cruel punishment? Slavery? None of the above.

I’ll have to discuss this “misogyny” with Mrs. Facie. Since we agree on the principle of free religious exercise it may be an interesting conversation.

guest

More left wing hypothetical BS. Hobby Lobby is saying that their religious beliefs are contrary to Sebelius’s requirement regarding birth control and abortifacients. This isn’t barring any customer from their stores.

And this is big government wanting to tell all businesses how to conduct their business and giving them the choice do it our way or get your people into our wonderful exchanges (which Harry Reid just exempted his staff from–some kind of wonderful, eh?).

It seems all you lefties are more invested in getting businesses to knuckle under to the government than protecting the employees excellent health care.

As for you whine regarding men vs women, you do know it is just a whine right? You betcha.

toohip

Again, so if anyone creates a religion that has tenets contrary to YOUR beliefs or that of Hobby Lobby, can they be invoked to counter standard business practices or avoid laws that YOU subscribe to? Using some vague “organized belief” to usurp societal secular law, seems to be more of a convenience with ulterior motives, than believing in not doing so excludes that golden ticket into martyrdom or heaven!

There is a Denver-area suburban baker who agreed to make a wedding cake for a couple. The baker then called the couple, informed them the baker learned they were a lesbian couple, and refused the order, because his Christian conscience was troubled by their relationship.
The couple sued under Colorado’s non-discrimination laws.
The baker is claiming “religious conscience”. His religion forbids him from associating with two women who would dare get married to each other. The Colorado Supreme Court is considering the appeal.
So, now we have have Hobby Lobby, Hercules, and other companies claiming “religious conscience” to deny women contraception coverage in their corporate insurance policies.
We have bakers claiming “religious conscience” to deny services to lesbian couples.
It’s a very short stretch to use “religious conscience” for a Muslim employer to deny a job to people solely because they are Jewish, or a Christian employer to use “religious conscience” to deny employment to pagans.
Now, some people here want a totally libertarian business environment, where any employer can refuse employment to anyone for any reason, including bias, or refuse service to anyone.
That’s fine. Let them repeal all civil rights laws.
But, that’s not what the Hobby Lobbies and Christian bakers of our fair land want. They want Christians to be able to discriminate based on “conscience” — but they’ll sue like crazy should anyone discriminate against them. Because Christians are so much more morally superior to those lowly sinful contraception-using women and all GLBT people.

guest

I know you want gays and lesbians to have special protection for any slights, etc. But are you telling me there wasn’t another bakery in the Denver area that would have been happy to have their business? That is a market solution to this slight.

Gays and lesbians actually tend to do much better than hetrosexuals financially. I see why black need protection as they do much worse, but why in the world do we need to have government lawyers looking out for slights to GLBT people? One tenant of the law is that there needs to be damages and I’m afraid hurt feelings aren’t recoverable damages.

And as you can see I’m not for repealing all civil right laws, but some could easily be repealed.

Dano2

Yes. this is exactly what they are trying to do. Look at the spam you generated – you hit on the fact that ‘religiss fraydum’ is a cover for looking for ways to treat workers more poorly than today. Regressing back to the 1800s before Labor secured protections.

Best,

D

earthside

Here is the practical truth: all of us have to send money off to Washington or to vast sprawling corporations that gets spent on things that go against our religious beliefs.

That is one of the requirements of the ‘social contract’ that gives us an orderly society. It goes against my religious beliefs to support war, but the First Amendment does’t allow me to not pay the portion of my income taxes that go to the Pentagon.

When I purchase anything from any company or corporation a portion of that money goes to support war when they pay their federal income taxes (if they do pay); should I be allowed to deduct a couple of cents off every transaction because of my religious beliefs?

Especially for a company like Hobby Lobby there are rules that have to be followed if we are to have any semblance of a functioning market place, every business cannot pick-and-choose what laws and regulations they like or don’t like and then come up with a ‘religious’ justification for doing whatever they want.

That’s life, Hobby Lobby and Mr. Richardson.

Besides, Hobbly Lobby doesn’t seem to have any problem doing its part to prop-up the communist Chinese government that permits near slave labor to manufacture 93 percent of its products to sell at a profit here in the U.S.A. — an officially atheistic government that effectively mandates abortion and all kinds of contraception.

Or does Hobby Lobby’s religious principles only apply when it might cost them something, not when it can make a profit off ignoring its ‘religious principles’?

reinhold23

Well said!

guest

Isn’t a well a dark hole?

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

You are correct that businesses can’t pick and choose what laws they like or don’t like, but the first amendment says the government can’t make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Dano2

Excellent. All corporations that restrict freedoms via the excuse of religion get all their subsidies and federal tax breaks revoked. And religious hospitals that restrict freedoms means their churches have to start paying taxes.

Done.

Best,

D

toohip

“clinging” again, I see! It seems like it’s always the right that make “convenient” interpretations of the Constitution, be it to own 100 round magazines for assault rifles over this simple 2nd amendment or suggesting that private companies can use religious beliefs to deny people access to that which is legally required. Sorry, goodspkr, but once again. . fail! Stop trying to keep the average man down because of your personal beliefs. . religious or otherwise.

reinhold23

The localization was in the can before the attempt was made to publish for NA (hence all the British accents).

Thanks for the link. There’s a difference between paying for localization and paying for publishing. It’s definitely possible that GS paid for publishing and received exclusivity in exchange.

toohip

Well said! and “ouch!” on the Chinese communist gov’t support! Hypocrisy. where is thy sting!

TLC

Amazing how we’ve managed to survive all these years without Obamacare, isn’t it? How we didn’t have a “social contract” before Obama gave us one. How we didn’t have an orderly society. Yet, oddly enough, we did. In fact, the social contract we had was found in the Constitution. Part of that social contract included freedom of religion. As long as that is part of the social contract, the government has no right to force someone to violate their own religious beliefs simply to benefit someone else. As much as you want to make this about the imminent destruction of civilization, it’s really about a benefit worth roughly $15 a month. Hobby Lobby is fighting for a principle of basic freedom; you’re fighting to save women $15. That’s all you get if your side wins. And don’t worry–civilization won’t collapse if Hobby Lobby wins.

earthside

The Green’s and all their family members who don’t want to use any kind of birth control have the religious liberty not to do so. As long as their business operates in the public arena they have to obey the same laws as everybody else. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it does not have ‘freedom of religion’. Just as any company owned by Buddhists is going to have to pay federal taxes that fund the military even if that is contrary to their religious convictions — that’s the way it works.

RaginGnome

Wow. All the “pro-choice” people are really out against this one.

TLC

I find it interesting how much the “pro-choice” people suddenly don’t believe in choice.

guest

We either have two different Guests or one that is schizophrenic.

Tbone

Like the choice to use the birth control agreed upon by you and your doctor, instead of your boss (who probably isn’t an MD)?

Dano2

Those drrty sl**s should behave. And in terms of the morning after pill, the body has a way to shut that whole thing down, dont’cha know.

Best,

D

TLC

The woman can make any choice she wishes, whether her employer pays for it or not. Prior to the mandate, many women chose to use contraceptives, even if they or their husbands had to pay for it. The contraceptive mandate didn’t suddenly create a choice that didn’t exist before. It simply required employers to pay for it.

Pro-choicers believe in granting choices to some people but not to others. Richard Lamm argued recently that everyone should follow their own conscience when it comes to abortion. So why shouldn’t everyone follow their own conscience when it comes to birth control? If a woman refuses to take BC for reasons of conscience, should she be compelled to do so? Of course not. So why should an employer be compelled to pay for birth control if it violates his conscience? Why does she get freedom of conscience but the employer doesn’t?

guest

Obviously this is the good Guest. Well said.

TLC

Thanks. Maybe I’ll use “Good Guest” as my login name. Just to cut down on confusion.

Guest

You must be the schizo….I don’t see “Guest” as the name, I see TLC. But then, you do see things in your own world, that aren’t in the real world, dontcha goodspkr???

Dano2

Folks, we see how the rump wing of the dying party is arguing this issue. They can’t come up with these arguments on their own, so you have to presume the noise machine is priming the pump. These ridiculous ‘religious fraydumb’ arguments are a cover for chipping away at worker protections and regressing back to the bad old days. Don’t let that happen.

Best,

D

toohip

Just like the minimum wage argument. This is when pure greed usurps the economic common sense that a reasonably prosperous lower middle class is an economic boost for the rest of the nation, including the richest of the rich. They’d rather make more profits then give a boost to the overall economy and save the nation.

Dano2

If this continues, we’re going to be the equivalent of a third world country for the poor in a generation, unless there is a revolution before then. This can’t continue.

Best,

D

toohip

Jean Wall makes some great points of the tangle web we weave when we try to achieve some nirvana of religious or moral purity, especially by this new suggestion that “corporations are people too, my friend!” Conservatives want this “freedom, liberty” or what ever nationalistic term they can drudge up, to refer to either individuals to have the “right” to make personal choices that affect them without regard if they affect others, and likewise for major corporations to make personal choices that clearly affect others. One of which the “others” have a vested interest in the personal choice made.

Everyone does have individual freedom to make personal choices, regardless of how detrimental it is . . to themselves. But you can’t make personal choices, even ones that cling to religious beliefs, that negatively (defined by a modern society) others. This includes one’s own children. Denying your child nutrition or health care which puts the child in personal safety is a crime. The same expand and applies to others, “directly and indirectly.” “Directly” could be carrying an loaded, open carry firearm in a municipality where it’s illegal, or driving an unsafe car, or any activity that puts the public at risk. “Indirectly” is like not wearing seat belts, buying crappy health insurance because you’re cheap and irresponsible, putting yourself at a risk, where the public (i.e., the tax payer/gov’t) has to provide for you if something goes wrong because of your “personal irresponsibility.” This is why gov’t sets regulations to protect everyone, and one of those a majority agrees on is contraception for young women, who can’t afford it and the consequences on that woman and society.

People have abused the “freedom OF religion” as an excuse not just to “indirectly” put themselves at risk, but “directly” to put others at risk, which is NOT their right under the law. What if I started a religion that objects to the paying of profits to corporations and I demand that I buy services and products merely at cost, invoking my “religious freedom” not to have to pay a profit to greedy corporation? Can I use the “freedom of religion” right for that? No, so why should a corporation claim religious freedom to deny their employees the “legal” rights as an employee? Answer: because people who want to live in the mid-20th century, want to take everyone back with them.

irisman

i didn’t think profit-making corporations have a religion, or maybe their religion is money. fair employment laws prohibit companies from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, race, or ethnicity. the question for the courts to decide is whether Hobby Lobby is practicing discrimination.

johnrpack

Health care decisions are among the most personal of transactions that we engage in.

Only Obama could think that adding a multi-trillion-dollar government to that mix will make it cheaper and easier.

Dano2

Only the experience of all the other advanced nations on the planet could think that adding a multi-trillion-dollar government to that mix will make it cheaper and easier.

FIFY.

Best,

D

guest

Zing! Great comment.

John Semple

“Only the conservative think tank The Heritage Institute could think…etc.” Or maybe “Only Republican Governor Mitt Romney could think…” The idea behind the ACA was theirs, after all.

johnrpack

The Republicans are every bit as lame as the Democrats when it comes to honoring their oaths to uphold the Constitution. I don’t trust the party of torture to be a check on the tax and spend party.

And, just my conservative opinion, Mitt Romney was the worst candidate for president in my lifetime. And, considering war-criminal-in-chief George W Bush was also one of those candidates, that’s really saying something.

Dano2

See! we’re not so far apart on the big picture sometimes.

Best,

D

John Semple

If I own/run a business, and I’m a member of the Church of Christ Scientist, then ANY medical care other than prayer would go against my religious beliefs. Therefore, I wouldn’t be required to pay for ANY medical insurance for my employees, otherwise it’s an infringement of my religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby’s suit were successful, imagine how many family-run corporations suddenly convert to Christian Science.

guest

Hello. No one is required to pay for their employee insurance. There will be a tax next year (somehow Obama ignored the law and put this off for a year), if you don’t, but you aren’t required to provide insurance.

And there you go to your hypothetical again.

John Semple

Guest, I think you missed my point.

Dano2

He is spamming the thread to shut down discussion. It’s what he and his many screen names do.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...